Skeleton of Earth's Largest Predator

angkor writes "A COMPLETE skeleton of the largest predator of all time, a Jurassic sea monster that made tyrannosaurus rex look like a featherweight, has been discovered in Mexico. /. needs more dinosaur articles..."

Ah fuck

[PD]

No pictures.

here's one [auz.com]

here's another [rr.com]

Some cool art

[fredrikj]

Can be found here:

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/varner.html

Re:From the article

[kaeli69]

I love it when people try to use science to prove something, then use it wrong. The amount of energy the sun outputs today (or the earth receives) has no direct relationship on determining the age of the earth. The sun has not always put out the same amount of energy, nor will it always. Look at other stars. The sun is merely a star and will go through the same life cycle as any other star of similar mass. Study some simple geography, geology, and astronomy. The earth can't be only 40,000 years old by the simple proof of moving plate techtonics, the rate at which things get buried in the earth as it shifts, and other simple things one learns in high school. Add in carbon-dating and other radioactive atoms and you get even more data to back that up. Add in the telescopes that see to the far reaches of the universe (creation of systems) and you have yet more data that supports it. Why is it so many people can believe God created a planet in a day, but they can't accept God creating the universe and letting evolution take its course?

Re:From the article

[MindStalker]

Wtf does the size of the earth in relation to the suns output have to do with the amount of time the earth has existed? As you saying that the earths mass should equal the suns output of energy onto the earth??? Why???

Re:Conservation of energy

[lirkbald]

No it hasn't. The earth is very close to thermal equillibrium, meaning it radiates about as much energy as it absorbs.

Go read up on some basic thermodynamics, troll. And while you're at it get a new nick, because you ain't.

Re:Conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cute.
A good dose of sun-shine can make the earth grow.

It's a bit like a plant, but bigger, I guess.

Dude, you *are* a genius.

Re:From the article

[jman11]

Congratulations: that is the most blatant example of the misapplication of formulas I have ever seen. Why is it that people don't realise a formula gives a number, but only when used in the right time and place.

Thankyou for providing this, I am going to use this when I teach over the USoA spring semester. I will remember to source it.

Wooo-eee.

[Your Fishing Partner]

I was pretty worried with all that fog this morning, but it looks like you managed to get a few solid bites.

Re:Why

[Sgt York]

The moon is not a fact, the moon is an object. Same for trees, just plural.

Theories can be believed or not; there are several examples in science where two(+) camps disagree over which of two theories is true; where one camp believes their way & v/v. Evolution itself is not in that kind of circumstance, although some mechanisms of it are.

You can believe in something other than a god. Even certain scientific theories (although most people use the term "adhere to" rather than "believe in"; same subjective meaning to most, though)

Why not

[Lord_Of_The_Beer]

I shouldn't respond to this, but I am going to anyways. I believe in Evolution/big Bang theory simply because it makes the most sense as opposed to the world being made out of the milk of a cow or Some chick putting dirt on top of a Turtle. None of the creation theories Ever made much sense to me. Why should I believe it? Because some book that is an incomplete partial translation of an earlier book that was a copy of a still earlier book said "God Said and ZAP-POW we had light"? If I ever met a priest that said, "I don't know" I might listen, but I never have. What I have seen is a lot self-serving mumbo-jumbo that can't be proven. There is no Hard Proof. Not that there is a lot of hard proof when it comes to Evolution either. But they admit it. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record. Yes there are parts of Biology & evolution that we can't explain. But at least they admit it I am curious what you consider to be "good" Science. It can't be astronomy. The notion that light travels thousands of years (well more then 6 thousand anyways) must put a strain on your faith. So that rules out physics & Chemistry (Or do you not believe that Iron was created in another star billions of years ago?) What Science do you believe in? What Science Can you believe in? I read once that the Adam and Eve story was a myth to explain why people left the hunter\gather lifestyle to begin agriculture. (Oh there was a happy time once when we didn't have to toil in the fields and God supplied every thing to us) The story was created much like the people who tell us we would be happier if we all lived as we did in the 17th century. I have to admit that interpretation of the story makes more sense to me then that story being the gospel truth. Does this make Analyses "bad" Science? What about logic? I hope you will respond to this .....

Re:Why

[Mirkon]

Good message, but I think you made a small error:

"...garbage like this [post] that is little more than instruments of hate aimed at the moral community."

Re:Why

[cicatrix1]

lol, i love tards.

A bit disappointed.

[mcgroarty]

I was sure that Rush Limbaugh [e-sheep.com] held top honors here.

Earth is mostly ocean

[josephgrossberg]

Is it just me, or does everyone else wonder what kind of awesome fossils lie on the ocean floor, given that:

(1) most of the earth's surface is covered by ocean, and that's likely been the case for quite some time
and
(2) the largest contemporary vertebrates (whales) live in the water, where gravity is less of a factor

Re:Earth is mostly ocean

[lirkbald]

You're probably right. No statistics on hand, but a large majority of known fossils are of marine organisms. I suppose because the right conditions for fossilization are more likely to occur on the relatively calm and undisturbed bottom of the ocean than somewhere on land.

Re:Earth is mostly ocean

[Simon Field]

It looks to me like about half of the ocean floor is too young [noaa.gov] to have dinosaur fossils.

But that is still a lot of territory.
Most of the old stuff looks pretty deep.
Given the typical paleontologist's budget, it is easy to see why they pick places like Montana and the Gobi Desert over the deep ocean.

Re:Earth is mostly ocean

[tsa]

Luckily parts of ancient oceans are dry land now. That makes discovering the fossils of extinct species that much more comfortable.

Re:Earth is mostly ocean

[jsse]

Have you seen the ad saying that some oil companies hires environmentists while researching new area of oil-mine?

This is rather a beer-talk with my friends, they told me that some of those people actually hired for helping oil companies to cover up any valuable palaeontological discovery from the public. They'd just destory any such evidence before announcing the discovery of a new oil-mine, so that they could avoid being interfered by local government and (real)environmentists during mass production.

Ever wonder why there's always annoucement of new oil-mines but not a trace of any palaeontological discovery in them? :)

No links for this rumor, just like there're very little online information on price-setting in diamond(do you realize the world-wide high price of diamond are fake? Diamond is very abundant resource comparing to other gems).

Job 41

[FroMan]

Check it out.

Not technically a dinosaur...

[Paul Burney]

The Editor said:

/. needs more dinosaur articles...

The skeleton they found isn't technically a dinosaur. My background is Physics, not Biology, but it has something to do with which Order or Class these creatures fit into.

I only found this out when my daughter was studying dinosaurs in school. I told her that there were dinosaurs that lived in the oceans and she told me they weren't really dinosaurs! I google'd it [austmus.gov.au] and sure enough, she was right. Doh!

Re:Not technically a dinosaur...

[rikumaru]

The /. editor is not the only one. In the article, the research team leader says:

"This is the world's first complete example of the species and therefore it is a sensational find," he said. "No other living creature in the sea could fight it successfully. They swallowed prey whole. This is the largest specimen of any dinosaur ever found."

Double Doh!

Re:Biggest Carnivore???

[geoswan]

Yes, it certainly would. Now if they had said, "the world's largest fearsome carnivore..." Blue whales can grow as large as 120 tons, according to this site [enchantedlearning.com]. (Compared to this beast's measly 50 tons.)